Texas School-to-Prison Pipeline

Ticketing, Arrest & Use of Force in Schools

How the Myth of the Blackboard Jungle Reshaped School Disciplinary Policy

Executive Summary

Texas School-to-Prison Pipeline

Ticketing, Arrest & Use of Force in Schools
How the Myth of the Blackboard Jungle Reshaped School Disciplinary Policy

Executive Summary

TEXAS APPLESEED 1609 Shoal Creek, Suite 201 Austin, TX 78701 512-473-2800 www.texasappleseed.net

December 2010

Texas Appleseed Report Team

Deborah Fowler, Legal Director Primary author Rebecca Lightsey, Executive Director Janis Monger, Communications Director Elyshia Aseltine, Data Analyst

Texas Appleseed Mission

Texas Appleseeds mission is to promote justice for all Texans by using the volunteer skills of lawyers and other professionals to find practical solutions to broad-based problems. This report is the third in a series examining the intersection of school discipline and gateways to the juvenile justice system. It focuses on Class C misdemeanor ticketing and arrest of students and on use of force (including pepper spray and Tasers) by school police officers.

Texas Appleseed Executive Committee

J. Chrys Dougherty, Chair Emeritus, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody,* austin Mark Wawro, Chair, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. ,* houston Allene D. Evans, Secretary-Treasurer, Allene Evans Law Firm,* austin Ronald C. Lewis, Immediate Past Chair, Marshall & Lewis LLP ,* houston R. James George, George & Brothers, LLP ,* austin Gregory Huffman, Thompson & Knight LLP ,* dallas Charles Kelley, Mayer Brown LLP ,* houston Michael Lowenberg, Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP ,* dallas Carrin F. Patman, Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP ,* houston Allan Van Fleet, Greenberg Traurig, LLP ,* houston *Affiliations listed for identification purposes only. Book Design: Vivify Creative Communications

Visit the Texas Appleseed website at www.texasappleseed.net to access a copy of the full report.

First Edition Copyright 2010, Texas Appleseed. All rights are reserved, except as follows: Free copies of this report may be made for personal use. Reproduction of more than five (5) copies for personal use and reproduction for commercial use are prohibited without the written permission of the copyright owner. The work may be accessed for reproduction pursuant to these restrictions at www.texasappleseed.net.

Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without the generous support of Houston Endowment; Harold Simmons Foundation; Rockwell Fund, Inc.; The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; The Simmons Foundation; and The Brown Foundation. Texas Appleseed is deeply grateful to its pro bono partners Vinson & Elkins, LLP (Houston), with assistance from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Dallas), for conducting the qualitative field research for this report. Our pro bono partners interviewed counselors, juvenile probation officers, and juvenile judges as well as students, parents and teachers about the impact of school-based policing. Texas Appleseed also would also like thank the following people for sharing their expertise and insights in the development of this report:
Steve Elliot Attorney Advocacy, Inc. austin, tx Tony Fabelo, Ph.D. Director of Research Council of State Governments Justice Center austin, tx Lynda E. Frost, J.D., Ph.D. Director of Planning and Programs Assoc. Clinical Professor of Education Policy and Planning Hogg Foundation for Mental Health The University of Texas at Austin austin, tx Will Harrell Public Policy Director for Louisiana and Mississippi Southern Poverty Law Center new orleans, la Laura Meutzner Policy Research Intern Texas Criminal Justice Coalition austin, tx Dustin Rynders Attorney Advocacy, Inc. houston, tx Jodie Smith, MPP Public Policy Director Texans Care for Children austin, tx Patricia Soung Staff Attorney National Center for Youth Law oakland, ca Lisa H. Thurau Esq. Director Strategies for Youth boston, ma Johanna Wald Director of Strategic Planning and Development Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Harvard Law School cambridge ma

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
In a little over two decades, a paradigm shift has occurred in the Lone Star State. The misdeeds of childrenacts that in the near recent past resulted in trips to the principals office, corporal punishment, or extra laps under the supervision of a middle school or high school coach, now result in criminal prosecution, criminal records, and untold millions of dollars in punitive fines and hefty court costs being imposed against children ages 10 through 16. Ryan Kellus Turner & Mark Goodner Passing the Paddle: Nondisclosure of Childrens Criminal Cases (2010)

Schools in Texas have historically been safe places for teachers to teach and students to learneven in high crime neighborhoods, yet student discipline is increasingly moving from the schoolhouse to the courthouse. Disrupting class, using profanity, misbehaving on a school bus, student fights, and truancy once meant a trip to the principals office. Today, such misbehavior results in a Class C misdemeanor ticket and a trip to court for thousands of Texas students and their families each year. It is conservatively estimated that more than 275,000 non-traffic tickets are issued to juveniles in Texas each year based on information from the Texas Office of Court Administration (TOCA). Low reporting of juvenile case data by Justice of the Peace courts to TOCA suggests that the number of non-traffic tickets issued to students may very well grossly exceed that number. While it is impossible to pinpoint how many of these tickets are issued by campus police, the vast majority of these tickets are issued for offenses most commonly linked to school-related misbehaviordisruption of class, disorderly conduct, disruption of transportation, truancy, and simple assaults related to student fights. Criminalization of student misbehavior extends to even the youngest students. In Texas, students as young as six have been ticketed at school in the past five years, and it is not uncommon for elementary-school students to be ticketed by school-based law enforcement.

School-based arrest of students is not as common, but does occurand often without prior notice to parents or a lawyer being present during initial questioning of the student. The increase in ticketing and arrest of students, in Texas and nationwide, has coincided with the growth in school-based policing. Campus policing is the largest and fastest growing area of law enforcement in Texas, according to its own professional association. With counselors stretched to handle class scheduling and test administration duties, school administrators and teachers are increasingly turning to campus police officers (also known as School Resource Officers or SROs) to handle student behavior problems. Today in Texas, most public schools have a police officer assigned to patrol hallways, lunchrooms, school grounds, and after-school events. According to media accounts, police officers in some Texas schools are resorting to use of force measures more commonly associated with fighting street crimepepper spray, Tasers and trained canineswhen a schoolyard fight breaks out or when students are misbehaving in a cafeteria or at a school event. The intent is to keep schools and students safe, but there can be unintended consequences to disciplining public school students in a way that introduces them to the justice system or exposes them to policing techniques more commonly used with adults. This report is the third in a series of Texas Appleseed publications exploring the impact of school disciplinary policies on school dropout and future involvement in the juvenile justice system. The school-to-prison pipeline is a phenomenon documented in a growing body of state and national research, and it is a destructive path all too familiar to the hundreds of teens incarcerated in Texas Youth Commission (TYC) facilities. Their stories highlight being repeatedly suspended, expelled, ticketed and referred to court for minor offenses before committing the offense that triggered their incarceration in TYC. Lock up in TYC is the end of the pipeline for some, while others will be transferred or commit a new offense resulting in their imprisonment in an adult corrections facility. After three years researching these issues through data analysis, literature review, direct observations and interviews with stakeholders, our main finding is clear: Texas can interrupt this destructive cycle and prevent the loss of more young people to the school-to-prison pipeline through early interventions focused less on punishment and more on creating positive school environments that address students academic and behavioral needs. Recommendations for reform are included in this report.

Executive Summary 2

Early Segments of the PipelineSuspension, Expulsion and Alternative Schools

In 2006, Texas Appleseed partnered with pro bono attorneys, experts from a variety of disciplines, and the Population Research Center at The University of Texas to examine disciplinary data self-reported by school districts to the Texas Education Agencyand to conduct extensive field interviews with superintendents, school board members, principals, teachers and counselors and hold focus groups with parents and students around school discipline issues. Then and again in 2009, as part of our research into school expulsion and Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs, Texas Appleseed documented the disproportionate impact of school discipline on minority and special education students. Some highlights:

 Where a child attends schooland not the nature of the offenseis the greater predictor of a students likelihood of expulsion or referral to In-School Suspension (ISS), Out-of-School Suspension (OSS), or to a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP) for non-violent misbehavior. Compared to their overall percentage in the total student population, African American (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) students are significantly overrepresented in schools discretionary referrals to ISS, OSS or DAEPs and in discretionary expulsions to Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs) or to the street. Special education students are likewise significantly overrepresented in school districts discretionary disciplinary actions. While there is insufficient record keeping and data reporting on ticketing and arrest of students on Texas school campuses across the state, available data indicates that minority and special education students are overrepresented here as well.

Executive Summary 3

The Advent of Campus Policing and the Criminalization of Student Misbehavior

The media and public policy debates surrounding school crime in the 1960sand continuing through the next decadetriggered a growth in campus security planning and increased pressure to have a police presence in schools. The publics fears about heightened youth violence far exceeded actual juvenile crime statistics or documented accounts of schoolbased violent outbreaks requiring law enforcement intervention (see Appendix, The Genesis of the Myth of the Blackboard Jungle). Still, by 1978, one in 100 surveyed schools reported having a police presence. In the 1990s, this practice became more widespread. Media accounts of isolated deadly school shootings, such as occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado (1999), fanned public fears of gun-wielding disaffected youth and shifted the public and policy dialogue from school crime to school violence. This shift in focus led to an increase in federal funding for School Resource Officer (SRO) programsand school districts in Texas, and other parts of the country, embraced the concept of SROs in schools as way to prevent another Columbine from happening here. Today, most Texas school districts have either contracted with local law enforcement to provide a School Resource Officer on school campuses or have created their own police department. Though national programs typically outline three roles for an SROlaw enforcement, counseling/mentoring, and teaching, research indicates that training for these officers is almost exclusively focused on traditional law enforcement with little provided on child behavior and development, mediation and de-escalation of tense campus situations, the role of student intent and the impact of disabilities on student behavior, or how to foster a positive school climate. Campus police officers also receive little to no guidance on how their decisions to discipline a special education student must account for the students disability.

Assessing Ticketing, Arrest and Use of Force in Texas Public Schools

For purposes of this study, Texas Appleseed submitted an Open Records Request to the Texas school districts that have established their own school police departments and to municipal and justice courts, requesting Class C ticketing and arrest data for a five-year period (2001-02 through 2006-07)broken down by race or ethnicity, the students age, the nature of the offense, and special education status of the student receiving the ticket. Only 26 school districts and eight municipal courts could provide any part of the requested information from a searchable database. Regarding Class C ticketing of students, only 22 school districts and four municipal court districts could provide any data for a two- to five-year-period. In 2006-07, these districts and court jurisdictions represented almost a quarter of all Texas students. Only 15 of these school districts could provide ticketing data that identified the race or ethnicity of the student, and age- or grade-range of the student. Only two districts kept ticketing data by special education status. The response was even lower for requested arrest data. It is also important to note that the Texas Education Agency does not require school districts to report student ticketing or arrest data, and very few school districts submit school-based crime data to the Texas Department of Public Safety for inclusion in the departments annual Uniform Crime Report. The school districts participating in this report are to be commended for efforts to track ticketing and arrest data. This sample data, while far from complete, provides important indicators as to the overall safety of public schools and the practice of ticketing and arresting students. It also underscores the necessity of more complete data keeping and analysis if school districts are to: 1) make informed decisions about the role of law enforcement in an educational, child-centered environment; 2) keep abreast of and promptly address overrepresentation of minority and special education students in ticketing and arrests on campus; 3) properly evaluate whether ticketing is a useful tool to improve student behavior; 4) determine the impacts of ticketingand the potential for fines and community serviceon students and families; 5) ensure that ISD police are adequately trained to the sensitivities of addressing problem behavior in a school setting; 6) routinely evaluate the quality and necessity for a police presence on campus and the appropriateness and effectiveness of tools and strategies used by campus police; and 7) make adjustments to campus policing as needed to mesh with overall goals for creating a positive school climate and ensuring a safe learning environment.

Executive Summary 4

Major Findings: Ticketing, Arrest and Use of Force in Texas Public Schools Class C Misdemeanor Ticketing
Ticketing of students in Texas public schools has increased substantially over a two- to five-year periodconsistent with a growing law enforcement presence in schools, but in sharp contrast to a reported overall drop in juvenile crime.
u

Twenty-two of the 26 districts or jurisdictions supplying ticketing data reported an increase in the number of tickets issued to students at school.

Some Texas school districts have more than doubled the number of Class C misdemeanor tickets issued over the two- to five-year period for which we have data. The increase in ticketing stands in marked contrast to the statewide 14 percent decrease in referrals to the juvenile system between 2000 and 2008.

Most Class C misdemeanor tickets written by school police officers are for lowlevel, non-violent misbehaviorbut ticketing of students can have far-reaching financial and legal impacts.
u

The most common misdemeanors for which students are ticketed in Texas public schools are non-violent Disruption of Class or Transportation, Disorderly Conduct, and curfew violations (leaving campus without permission)however, unlike juvenile court, children convicted or entering guilty or no contest pleas in municipal and justice courts have criminal records. Legislation (SB 1056) adopted by the 81st Texas Legislature in 2009 mandated criminal courts (including municipal and justice courts) immediately issue a nondisclosure order upon the conviction of a child for a misdemeanor offense punishable by fine only, however due to the large volume of these cases and the burden on courts to clear Class C tickets through the Texas Department of Public Safety, the non-disclosure law is not workingand Class C misdemeanors are staying on a youths criminal record accessible by future employers and others. Students who fail to pay a court-imposed fine or complete court-imposed community service in the wake of a Class C ticket issued at school can be arrested at age 17and incidents of this happening in Hidalgo County are currently being challenged in court. The courts providing information for this study reported assessing fines and court costs for Class C tickets ranging from less than $60 to more than $500and many students receive multiple tickets in a single school year.

Executive Summary 5

Where a child attends school, and not the nature of the offense, is the greater predictor of whether that child will be ticketed at school.
u

The practice of issuing Class C tickets depends on locally applied policy, not the nature of the students behavior. In 2006-07, some of the states largest school districts issued the greatest number of Class C misdemeanor tickets: Houston ISD, 4,828 tickets; Dallas ISD, 4,402; San Antonio ISD, 3,760; and Austin ISD, 2,653. However, some smaller districts also issued large numbers of tickets that year: Brownsville ISD, 2,856; Corpus Christi ISD, 2,095; Alief ISD, 1,926; and Waco ISD, 1,070.

 African American and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic students are disproportionately represented in Class C misdemeanor ticketing on Texas public school campuses.
u

Of the 15 districts that could identify the race and ethnicity of ticketed students, 11 disproportionately ticketed African American students compared to their percentage of the total student population. In the most recent year for which ticketing data is available, these districts reported ticketing African American students at a rate double their representation in the student body: Austin ISD, Dallas ISD, Humble ISD, Katy ISD and San Antonio ISD.

Executive Summary 6

Special education students are likely overrepresented in Class C ticketing on school campuses.
u

Only two school districts could break ticketing data down by special education status, but both reported ticketing special education students at rates more than double their representation in the student body: Midland ISD, 19 percent of ticketed students were in special education (8 percent in student body) and San Angelo ISD, 29 percent of ticketed students were in special education (12 percent in student body).

It is not unusual for elementary school-age children, including students 10 years old or younger, to receive Class C misdemeanor tickets at schooland data indicates students as young as six have been ticketed.
u

Ten school districts provided data broken down by school levelelementary, middle school, or high school. While the majority of tickets were issued to middle and high school students, more than 1,000 tickets were issued to elementary school children over the six-year period for which we have data. Districts reporting the largest number of tickets to elementary students are: Dallas ISD, 1,248 tickets; Alief ISD, 355; Wichita Falls, 99; Austin ISD, 91; and Humble ISD, 75. Five Texas school districts reported the specific age of ticketed studentsand of these, three reported issuing tickets to children ages six to nine (or, in the case of Katy ISD, ages four to nine) between 2001 and 2007: Dallas, 14 tickets; Huntsville, three tickets; and Katy ISD, 34 tickets.

Arrest of Students at School

Of the 12 Texas school districts that were able to disaggregate arrest data by year, the arrest numbers for nine of those districts increased anywhere from 20 percent to more than 100 percent over the multi-year period for which they provided data.

 The majority of arrests in reporting school districts are for non-violent offenses that do not involve use of weaponsand Disorderly Conduct, one of the offenses resulting in the largest numbers of Class C misdemeanor tickets, is also one of the offenses for which students were most often arrested.
u

In the 11 reporting school districts that could provide arrest data disaggregated by offense type for 2006-07, only 20 percent of the more than 3,500 arrests involve violence or weapons. In the vast majority of cases, the weapon used was fists. Drug and alcohol offenses make up 31 percent of all arrests reported by these 11 school districts in 2006-07.

African American students are disproportionately represented in school-based arrests.

u

Executive Summary 7

Of the 17 school districts providing school-based arrest data to Texas Appleseed, only 10 kept data on the race and ethnicity of arrested students. Of those 10 districts, seven showed an overrepresentation of African American students.

Very young children are being arrested on Texas school campuses.

u

Only nine of the 17 reporting school districts could disaggregate arrest data by age. Out of the 5,900 arrests in these districts in 2006-07, 225 of those involved elementary school children. Two districts reported the number of students under age 10 who had been arrested at some point over a six-year period: El Paso ISD, 11 students; and Katy ISD, three students.

Where a child attends school, and not the nature of the offense, is the great determining factor in whether a student will be arrested at school.
u

Some smaller school districts had some of the highest student arrest rates: East Central ISD, 51 arrests for every 1,000 students, and Corpus Christi ISD, 26 arrests for every 1,000 students, compared to 10 arrests per 1,000 students for San Antonio ISD and six arrests per 1,000 students for El Paso, Midland, Humble and United ISDs.

Only two-thirds of the 26 school district police departments providing data to Texas Appleseed could supply numbers on school-based arrests.
u

These 17 reporting districtswhich accounted for only 13 percent of the states total student enrollment for 2006-07arrested 7,100 students that year. Two of the states largest school police departmentsin Dallas ISD and Houston ISDcould not provide data on school-based arrests.

Use of Force at School

School district police departments are arming police officers with force that includes pepper spray, Tasers, stun bags, guns and caninesand some of these weapons are being used on students, despite the risks they pose. The Texas Education Codes exemption of peace officers from reporting requirements for student restraint, along with a recent Attorney General opinion allowing school district police departments to withhold use of force policies from the public, result in a complete lack of transparency around school use of force practices.
u

Executive Summary 8

Of the 26 districts providing data to Texas Appleseed, only four were able to provide data related to the use of force by a school police officer on a student. Of these four districts, only one could provide data for more than two years. None of these districts could provide data relating to special education status of the students restrained.

Use of force policies reveal that many school police departments require officers to carry pepper spray, but few have policies that restrict its use in situations involving youth. This is in sharp contrast to the restrictions Texas juvenile justice agencies have placed on use of pepper spray on youth in their custody. African American and Hispanic students are disproportionately represented in use of force incidents at school.
u

In two of the four districts that could provide data, African American students were subjected to use of force by ISD police at a rate more than twice their representation in the student body. In the only district that could report this data by both race or ethnicity and type of force used, minority students were involved in an overwhelming majority of incidents involving pepper spray, baton or impact weapons, and Taser incidents.

Educational Programming and Juvenile Facilities

Though a major study has been conducted and legislation passed in an attempt to improve educational programming in the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), little to no attention has been paid to educational programming in county-run juvenile detention facilities.
u

In fact, county-run facilities house more juvenile offenders over the course of a year, compared to TYC. Quality educational programming in juvenile facilities has been proven to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for youth.

Major Policy Recommendations School-wide Positive Behavior Supports (PBS)

1) Texas schools should adopt school-wide Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) proven to reduce student misbehavior and keep schools saferresulting in fewer disciplinary 1 referrals and reducing the need for law enforcement interventions. When implemented with integrity, PBS has been proven effective in addressing behavioral issues in a proactive, positive way, seeing disciplinary interventions as an opportunity for a teachable moment. It has also been shown to reduce overrepresentation of minority and special education students in disciplinary referrals. 2) When schools adopt PBS, they must include school police in training and use PBS as a framework for evaluating and fine-tuning campus policing policies. Failure to do so results in a potential inconsistency and conflict between school-based law enforcement methods and procedures and PBS. Executive Summary 9

Training
3) School-based law enforcement personnel should be required to receive postcertification training in issues specific to youth, including:
u

De-escalation and mediation techniques Soft-hand restraint techniques to be used when force cannot be avoided Signs and symptoms of trauma, abuse and neglect in children and youth, and appropriate responses Signs and symptoms of mental illness in children and youth, and appropriate responses Manifestations of other disabilities, such as autism, and appropriate responses Adolescent development Juvenile law Special education and applicable general education law

For more information about schoolwide PBS, see Texas APPleseed, Texas School to Prison PiPeline: DroPout to Incarceration 79-96; Texas APPleseed, Texas School to Prison PiPeline: School ExPulsion 22-23 (2010).

Ticketing
4) The Education Code should be amended to clearly prohibit school districts from receiving any revenue from Class C ticketing for truancy or any other offense. Chapter 25 of the Texas Education Code currently requires fines collected in Class C parent contributing to nonattendance cases to be split between the school district issuing the ticket and the justice or municipal court. During our research, Texas Appleseed was told that this type of arrangement may exist for other Class C misdemeanor fines associated with school-based ticketing. The Education Code should be amended to prohibit the practice. Executive Summary 10 5) Chapter 37 of the Education Code should be amended to eliminate Disruption of Class and Disruption of Transportation as penal code offenses. These low-level offenses are channeling students into the criminal court system where they may face fines and possible jail time. This is not an effective method of encouraging students to behave, and places students on a path toward academic failure and further juvenile or adult criminal justice involvement. 6) Chapter 37 of the Education Code should be amended to prohibit ticketing of students under the age of 14. Young children are simply not equipped to understand a Class C misdemeanor ticket as a meaningful consequence of misbehavior, and the consequences of court involvement on academic success are too great to allow this practice to continue. 7) Chapter 37 of the Education Code should be amended to specify that ticketing of older students should be a last resort. Ticketing and arrest should be avoided in situations involving minor misbehavior (including a school yard fight that does not result in serious injury) that, in another era, would have simply resulted in a trip to the principals office. Offenses that should be targeted with this approach include Disorderly Conduct, campus-based curfew violations and trespass. The Code should require a graduated approach to ticketing whereby school-based law enforcement would warn students the first time they commit an offense, refer them to services or require in-school community service upon the second offense, and ticket no sooner than the third offense. School districts must be encouraged to find meaningful alternatives to using ticketing as a method of disciplining students for low-level misbehavior. 8) Chapter 25 of the Education Code should be amended to eliminate Failure to Attend School as a criminal offense. The elements of this offense are identical to truancy, a CINS (Conduct In Need of Supervision) offense that is more appropriately handled by giving students and families access to services and resources that will assist in getting the student back on a path toward school success. Fining students for failing to go to school is an ineffective solution that places students on a path with a higher likelihood of academic failure.

9) Schools should create or expand effective prevention and intervention programs, such as peer mediation and restorative justice practices, as alternatives to ticketing. These practices could be part of a comprehensive graduated sanctions approach, with school-based law enforcement referring youth to these programs rather than issuing a ticket.

Arrest
10) Chapter 37 of the Education Code should be amended to specify that arrest of students for low-level, school-based misbehavior should be a last resort, and used only for behavior that includes weapons or threatens the safety of the campus, students or faculty. Steps should be taken to address behavior in a way that is proactive and positive rather than reactive and negative, given the extreme consequences that arrest can have on a young persons life. 11) Juvenile justice stakeholders should determine what percentage of their referrals result from school-based arrests. If they make up a significant portion of referrals, juvenile justice stakeholdersincluding the local juvenile board and probation officialsshould work with education stakeholders to create a plan to reduce school-based referrals. The consequences of a referral to the juvenile justice system are too serious to ignore the increasing percentage of youth referred by school-based law enforcement for behavior that in other settings might not merit a referral. Juvenile justice and education stakeholders must come together to explore solutions. Executive Summary 11

Use of Force
12) Pepper spray and Tasers should be prohibited for use on students by school-based law enforcement, except in situations involving firearms or other weapons capable of causing serious bodily harm. These uses of force carry great risk for harm to youth, and should not be available to break up fights between students or to restore order in the absence of a threat of bodily harm to students or school staff. 13) Prone restraints should be prohibited for use on students as a restraint technique by school-based law enforcement. This type of physical restraint carries great risk of harm to youth, has been prohibited in other institutional settings where youth are treated, and should not be used on students in Texas schools.

Educational Programming & Juvenile Facilities

14) The State should commission a comprehensive study on the quality of educational programming, including special education services, in juvenile detention facilities. The study should consider whether the programs comply with current law, should identify best practices, and determine where existing programs fall short.

15) Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code should be amended to require the transition of all students, released from juvenile detention or TYC, back to their home school. Once a youth has been deemed rehabilitated, he or she should be allowed to reenter the mainstream school system, and not tracked to a DAEP or JJAEP. 16) When making decisions about closure or location of new facilities, TYC should consider the availability of qualified administrative, teaching and special education staff for educational programs.

Transparency
Executive Summary 12 17) School district police departments should be required to compile a searchable database that includes the number of citations issued, custodial arrests, and use of force incidents by school district officers or security guards on each campus. The database must be able to generate reports that will disaggregate data according to:
u

Whether the subject of the citation, arrest or use of force was a student or non-student. The campus where the incident occurred. The age, gender and race/ethnicity of the subject of the citation, arrest or use of force. Special education status, if the subject was a student. Nature of the offense. The type of force or restraint used, and the level of resistance (compliant, passive resistant, active resistant, aggressive) posed by the subject that justified the force employed by the officer. The name of the police officer who issued the citation, made the arrest, or used force.

18) Section 37.109 of the Texas Education Code, which requires a School Safety and Security Committee in every school district, should be amended to require inclusion of a representative from a parent organization or a parent, if there is no parent organization in the district; a representative from a student leadership group, or a student; a representative from an organization that advocates for youth who have disabilities; representatives from local social service agencies; and a representative from the local juvenile probation department. In addition to the existing information that the committee is required to develop and review, the statute should be amended to require that the committee:
u

Review and assist in determining the appropriate role for school district police officers. Participate with the school districts police department in reviewing ticketing, arrest and use of force and restraint data and developing the school district law enforcements annual report.

If the district does not have a stand-alone police department, the committee should participate in reviewing and, if need be, amending the MOU with local law enforcement to reflect the data collection and reporting, training and transparency practices discussed in other recommendations. Work with school law enforcement to develop an appropriate use of force continuum that will be posted for public comment on the districts website before being considered by the school board. Review school law enforcements use of force reports each school year, and determine whether the way force is being used by school law enforcement is appropriate. Periodically review ticketing and arrest data, and make recommendations to the district regarding preventative methods (including additional training for school law enforcement) that could reduce the number of youth referred to courts or the juvenile system. Executive Summary 13

19) School district police departments should compile an annual report for the school board, made available to the public through the districts website, that includes an analysis of ticketing, arrest and use of force data. Annual reports should include:
u

The number of minority students (district-wide and by campus) who were ticketed, arrested or the subject of a use of force action, in relation to their percentage in the student bodyand, if they are overrepresented, what measures have been identified by the Department, ISD police department and district and campus administrators to address any overrepresentation. The report should include any complaints or internal findings of racial profiling and corrective measures taken. The number of special education students ticketed, arrested, or who were the subject of a use of force district-wide and by school campus (in relation to their percentage in the student body) and, if they are overrepresented, what measures have been identified by the ISD police department, district and campus administrators, and special education staff to address those issues, with particular attention paid to whether a gap in resources, supports or services is related to the overrepresentation. An analysis of the number and rate of ticketing, arrests and use of force incidents by campus; a discussion of how the department can reduce such incidents in the future; and an assessment of whether school district police department resources are being appropriately utilized. How and with what frequency the ISD police department has used its data for the reporting year to inform its practicesincluding officer training, student mentoring, and teaching or providing information resources to studentson specific campuses and district-wide. How campus administrators have used police department data to inform and design preventative measures, disciplinary practices, and services to students to assist in addressing behavioral issues, and collaborative efforts between campus administrators and the school district police department to address issues revealed by their analysis of the data.

An analysis of the types of offenses being committed broken down by campus, the places on the campus they are being committed, who (adults or students) is committing crimes by type of crime, the time of day when crimes are most likely to be committed, and any preventive measures taken to make particular areas of campus less prone to crime.

Executive Summary 14

20) For districts that contract with local law enforcement agencies for School Resource Officers, the districts Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the law enforcement agency should require the same data collection, analysis and reporting outlined above. The MOU also should include a schedule for the routine circulation of this information to inform their policies and practices around school discipline and preventative approaches to school crime. 21) Policymakers should determine an appropriate method of statewide collection and reporting of ticketing and arrest data for public school campuses to better inform educational and juvenile justice policy. Two options:
u

TEA could modify the PEIMS database to require school districts to report data related to student ticketing and arrest, and include it as part of the disciplinary data TEA posts. The data should be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age and special education status; or TJPC could modify the new Juvenile Case Management System that will be utilized by juvenile probation departments to allow for the collection of this data.

22) Texas Education Code 37.0021, which requires reporting of restraint and seclusion, should be amended to require reporting for all students, not just special education students. Texas is currently under-reporting restraint and seclusion. To truly understand the extent to which these practices are used, we must require reporting for all students. 23) Section 37.0021 should also be amended so that school-based law enforcement are no longer exempt from the reporting requirements for restraint and seclusion. There is no sound policy reason for excluding school-based law enforcement from reporting. The failure to include them encourages using school law enforcement to circumvent reporting requirements. 24) School district police departments should be required to post unredacted copies of their policy manuals on the districts website. Parents and community members must be able to access information about directives determining how school law enforcement interacts with youth on school campuses.

A Snapshot: Ticketing and Arrest Data and Use of Force Options in Reporting Texas School Districts
The following charts document trends in the ticketing and arrest of students in Texas public schools. Also included is a table listing the range of use of force options available to school police officers in the 16 Texas school districts that either reported this data directly to Texas Appleseed or post this information online. Texas Appleseed requested ticketing, arrest and use-of-force data from the 167 Texas school districts operating their own ISD police departments. However, only 26 school districts and eight of the states municipal courts could provide any part of requested data for a five-year period (2001-02 through 2006-07). Specifically, only 22 school districts and four municipal courts could provide school-based Class C ticketing data for a two- to five-year period, with widely varying response rates to requests for data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, the students age, nature of the offense, and special education status. Still this ticketing data is reflective of 27 percent of Texas students, and includes urban, suburban and rural districts with populations of varying size. Response rates were lower to Texas Appleseeds requests for disaggregated data on student arrests and use of force incidents. The trends reflected below are significant, but better data collection is needed to evaluate the full extent of these practices and to determine how best to respond to student misbehavior without introducing more students to the justice system. To access Texas Appleseeds complete report and all data tables, visit our website at www.texasappleseed.net under Publications and on the School-to-Prison Pipeline project page.

Executive Summary 15

Growth in School District Police Department Staff & Increase/Decrease in Ticketing During Same Period1

School District
Austin ISD Dallas ISD Edgewood ISD El Paso ISD Humble ISD Katy ISD United ISD Waco ISD

Percentage Growth of Police Department Staff 31% 24% 35% 37% 92% 30% 71% 10%

Increase/Decrease in Ticketing 50% 95% -72% 59% 29% -55% 37% -22%

NOTE: Only this small number of reporting school districts could provide data for a corresponding period of time (two or more years) on changing levels of police department staffing and increases/decreases in ticketing of students.

Class C Misdemeanor Tickets Issued in 26 School Districts 2 and Court Jurisdictions in 2006-07 School Year 34 5

School District/Municipal Court

(Enrollment) Alief ISD (45,625) Austin ISD (81,917) Brownsville ISD (48,284) Castleberry ISD (3,322) Corpus Christi ISD (38,785) Dallas ISD (158,814) East Central ISD (8,470) Edgewood ISD (11,906) El Paso ISD (62,635) Galveston ISD (8,430) Houston ISD (202,449) Humble ISD (31,144) Huntsville Municipal Court
(Huntsville ISD 6,229)

Executive Summary 16

Number of Ticketing Class C Tickets Rate 1,926 4% 2,653 3% 3 2,856 6% 181 5% 2,095 5% 4,402 3% 501 6% 233 2% 1447 2% 921 11% 4,828 2% 431 1% 245 4% 1336 262 369 4 329 321 5 3,760 38 3% Less than 1% 2% Less than 1% 2% 7% 7%

(Lewisville ISD 48,890)

Katy ISD (50,725) Lewisville-Flower Mound Municipal Court

Midland ISD (20,827) Pasadena ISD (49,630) San Angelo ISD (14,333) San Antonio ISD (55,322) Somerville Municipal Court (Somerville ISD 529)

3 4

Texas Appleseed has data for a two districts that were not included in this chart because their numbers were so small: Lubbock-Cooper ISD (one ticket issued in 2006-07 for tobacco possession), and Tioga Municipal Court (three tickets issued during the 2006-07 school year); Texas Appleseed has data through 2005-06 for Caddo Mills Municipal Court (nine tickets issued that year and 15 issued the year before) and data for 2007-08 for two districtsAustin ISD (2,364 tickets issued) and Humble ISD (500 tickets issued). Data from Brownsville tracked law enforcement events rather than citations. Texas Appleseed subtracted any events that were not criminal violations (such as welfare concern and K9 Sweeps), truancy violations, and arrest counts. Pasadena ISD did not disaggregate data by school year. The total number of tickets issued during the six-year period for which they provided data was 2054. Texas Appleseed divided 2054 by the number of months for which we have data, then multiplied by 12 to come up with a yearly average. The number included in the chart could be higher or lower than the actual number of tickets issued to students in 2006-07. San Antonio ISD did not disaggregate their data by year. Texas Appleseed divided the total number of tickets issued21,618by the total number of months for which we have data, and then multiplied by 12 to get a yearly average.

School District/Municipal Court

(Enrollment) Southlake Municipal Court (Carroll ISD 7,772) Spring Branch ISD (32,098) United ISD (37,671) Waco ISD (15,403) White Settlement ISD (5,405) Wichita Falls ISD (14,675)
6

Number of Ticketing Class C Tickets Rate 85 1% 6 510 2% 522 1% 1070 7% 160 3% 369 3%

Breakdown of Ticketing Offenses for 22 Texas School Districts 200607

3% 7%

Executive Summary 17

38% 34%

18%

Local Code of Conduct

Curfew

Disruption

Disorderly Conduct

Other

NOTE: Only 22 of the 26 school districts or jurisdictions providing ticketing data to Texas Appleseed could disaggregate the data by type of offense.

Spring Branch ISD could not disaggregate data by school-based citation versus school-based arrest. The total number of incidents for 2006-07 was 808. Texas Appleseed included only those offensesdisorderly conduct, disruption of class or transportation, curfew, tobacco and gang membershipthat are traditionally handled with a Class C misdemeanor citation rather than a school-based arrest with the student taken into custody. However, the actual number of citations issued could be higher or lower.

Overrepresentation of African American Students in Class C Misdemeanor Ticketing in Reporting Texas School Districts, 2006-07

School District
Austin ISD Corpus Christi ISD Dallas ISD El Paso ISD Humble ISD Huntsville ISD Katy ISD Midland ISD Pasadena ISD San Antonio ISD White Settlement ISD

Executive Summary 18

African American Percentage in Student Body 12% 5% 30% 5% 17% 27% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8%

African American Percentage in Class C Misdemeanor Tickets 25% 7% 62% 8% 42% 51% 18% 19% 14% 16% 14%

NOTE: Within the 26 school districts or courts providing ticketing data to Texas Appleseed, only 15 were able to disaggregate ticketing data by race and ethnicity. Of these, 11 overrepresented African American students in Class C ticketing at school in 2006-07.

School Districts Issuing Tickets to Elementary School Students, 2001-07 7 8

School District
Alief ISD Austin ISD Castleberry ISD Dallas ISD Edgewood ISD 8 Humble ISD Pasadena ISD Somerville Municipal Court United ISD White Settlement ISD Wichita Falls ISD
7

Number of Tickets 355 91 21 1,248 64 75 43 1 48 5 99

NOTE: Only 10 school districts and one municipal court among the 26 school/court jurisdictions providing ticketing data to Texas Appleseed could disaggregate their ticketing data by school level.
7 8

Alief only provided data for two years2006 and 2007. Humble ISD provided data for 2004 forward, so this number does not cover the entire six year period.

School-Based Arrests and Arrest Rates for 17 Texas School Districts, 2006-07 9 1011 12 13

School District
(Enrollment) Austin ISD (81,917) Brownsville ISD (48,284) Castleberry ISD (3,322) Corpus Christi ISD (38,785) East Central ISD (8,470) Edgewood ISD (11,906) El Paso ISD (62,635) Humble ISD (31,144) Katy ISD (50,725) McAllen ISD (24,558) Midland ISD (20,827) Pasadena ISD (49,630) San Antonio ISD (55,322) Spring Branch ISD (32,098) United ISD (37,671) White Settlement ISD (5,405) Wichita Falls ISD (14,675)

Number of Arrests 1,310 399 5 1,001 429 9 206 401 187 512 111 126 10 1,288 11 553 12 298 13 237 12 30

Arrest Rate 16 arrests for every 1,000 students 8 arrests for every 1,000 students 1.5 arrests for every 1,000 students 26 arrests for every 1,000 students 51 arrests for every 1,000 students 17 arrests for every 1,000 students 6 arrests for every 1,000 students 6 arrests for every 1,000 students 10 arrests for every 1,000 students 4.5 arrests for every 1,000 students 6 arrests for every 1,000 students 26 arrests for every 1,000 students 10 arrests for every 1,000 students 9 arrests for every 1,000 students 6 arrests for every 1,000 students 2 arrests for every 1,000 students 2 arrests for every 1,000 students

Executive Summary 19

NOTE: These school districts accounted for 13 percent of the states total student enrollment for 2006-07; that year, 7,100 students were arrested at school in these 17 districts.

9 10

11 12

13

Edgewood ISD did not disaggregate data by year. This number was determined by dividing the total number of arrests by the number of years covered by the data. Pasadena ISD did not disaggregate data by school year. The total number of arrests during the six-year period for which they provided data was 8,054. Texas Appleseed divided 8,054 by the number of months for which we have data, then multiplied by 12 to come up with a yearly average. Thus, the number included in the chart could be higher or lower than the actual number of arrests in 2006-07. In addition, the only arrests included were those reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for inclusion in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). Since not all school districts report arrests to DPS for inclusion in the UCR, this number may be conservative. San Antonio ISD did not disaggregate their data by year. Texas Appleseed divided the total number of arrests21,618by the total number of months for which we have data, and then multiplied by 12 to get a yearly average. As noted in the last chapter, Spring Branch ISD did not break out citations from arrests in their data. Texas Appleseed subtracted all incidents for which students are generally issued Class C misdemeanor citations in lieu of being taken into custody. Thus, the actual number of arrests for 2006-07 may have been higher or lower than this number. The most recent year for which United ISD provided data was 2005-06.

Representation of African American Students in School-Based Arrests in Seven Texas Districts, 2006-07

School District
(Enrollment) Corpus Christi ISD East Central ISD El Paso ISD Katy ISD Midland ISD Pasadena ISD San Antonio ISD

Executive Summary 20

African American Percentage in Student Body 5% 11% 5% 9% 10% 8% 8%

African American Percentage in School-Based Arrests 9% 21% 7% 17% 19% 13% 25%

NOTE: Of the 17 school districts that provided data to Texas Appleseed for school-based arrests, only 10 could disaggregate the data according to the race and ethnicity of the students arrested. The majority (see above chart) overrepresented African American students in arrests based on their percentage in the student body.

Number of Elementary School Students Arrested in Six Texas School Districts, 2006-07

School District
Austin ISD East Central ISD El Paso ISD Humble ISD Katy ISD McAllen ISD

Number of Elementary School Students Arrested 96 63 38 10 13 5

NOTE: Of the small number of Texas school districts that could disaggregate their data by school level or age, six reported arrests of elementary school children in 2006-07, the most recent year for which Texas Appleseed has data.

The following chart reflects use of force options available to school police officers in the Texas school districts that either responded directly to Texas Appleseeds request for their policy on use of force or from districts that post their policies online. Texas Appleseed is pursuing a legal challenge to a recent state Attorney General opinion allowing school district police departments to withhold use of force policies from the public.

Spectrum of Use of Force Options in 16 Texas School Districts

School District
Alief ISD Austin ISD

Baton/Impact Weapon
Yes Yes

Pepper Spray/ Taser

Neither Both, also allows use of stun bags

Canines
Not mentioned

Firearm
Yes

Yesmay also be Yes used in conjunction with stun bags in a bag and bite option Officers carry handguns; shotguns carried in patrol cars. Yes Yes Yes No duty weapons issued, but officers authorized to carry weapons registered with chief. Unloaded shotguns may be carried in vehicles. Handguns, no shotguns No

Executive Summary 21

Brownsville ISD Cedar Hill ISD Conroe ISD Dallas ISD East Central ISD

Optional Yes Yes Yes Yes

Chemical Irritant Not mentioned mandatory equipment in use of force for officers section Pepper Spray; officers also allowed to carry a utility knife. Pepper Spray Pepper Spray Chemical agents included in use of force continuum but not mentioned elsewhere Pepper Spray; officers also authorized to carry a utility knife. Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned

Edgewood ISD Edinburg CISD

Yes

Not mentioned Not mentioned

Refers to authorized Not mentioned non-deadly weapons, but does not identify them. Yes Yes Pepper Spray Pepper Spray/fog only authorized for Special Response Team; pepper foam authorized for other officers. Tasers can only be used by specially trained personnel. Both No

El Paso ISD Houston ISD

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Humble ISD Laredo ISD

Yes Yes

Not mentioned Not mentioned

Yes Handguns; shotguns/rifles carried by certified officers. Handguns; no shotguns. Handgun and patrol rifles Handguns authorized but not provided; patrol rifles provided.

Lubbock-Cooper ISD Pasadena ISD Wichita Falls ISD

Yes Yes Yes

No Pepper Spray

Not mentioned Yes

Pepper Spray; also Not mentioned includes bicycle in intermediate weapons.

TEXAS APPLESEED BOARD OF DIRECTORS

J. Chrys Dougherty, Chair Emeritus Mark Wawro, Chair
Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody,* Austin Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston *

Tommy Jacks

Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin *

Allene D. Evans, Secretary-Treasurer

Allene D. Evans Law Firm, Austin * Marshall & Lewis LLP, Houston *

George Washington University Law School,* Washington, D.C.

Susan Karamanian

Charles Kelley Layne Kruse Neel Lane

Ronald C. Lewis, Immediate Past Chair George Butts

Mayer Brown LLP,* Houston Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Houston * Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,* San Antonio

DLA Piper, Austin *

Clinton Cross

Office of County Attorney, El Paso *

Michael Lowenberg Elizabeth Mack

Dennis P. Duffy

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Dallas * Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Dallas *

Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston *

Edward F. Fernandes N. Scott Fletcher

Jones Day,* Houston

Hunton & Williams LLP, Austin *

Carrin F. Patman Kathy D. Patrick

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,* Houston Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Houston *

R. James George David Gerger

George & Brothers, LLP,* Austin Gerger & Clarke,* Houston

Hon. Elizabeth Ray

Houston

Michael Rodriguez David Sharp

Mark K. Glasser Sean Gorman Carla Herron

Rodriguez & Nicolas L.L.P., Brownsville * Gunderson, Sharp & Walke, L.L.P., Houston *

Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston * Dewey & LeBoeuf,* Houston Shell Oil Company,* Houston

Allan Van Fleet Luis Wilmot

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Houston * Network of Latino Credit Unions & Professionals,* San Antonio

Gregory Huffman

Thompson & Knight LLP,* Dallas

*affiliations listed for identification only

Visit Texas Appleseeds website at www.texasappleseed.net to access the complete report and all data charts.

W W W. T E X A S A P P L E S E E D . N E T